RE: Character �

[Derek Denny-Brown <derekdb@microsoft.com>]

Actually, this was fixed in MSXML 3.0, although depending on the CLSID
(or ProgID) used to create the parser/dom, this may be disabled, due to
problems with backward compatibility.  (Ahh, the joys of human
inperfection.. you ship buggy code and must support those exact bugs
forever...).  If you use version specific CLSIDs for version 3.0 or 4.0,
you are guaranteed to have proper character checking.

-derek

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:11 PM
> To: Fred L. Drake, Jr.; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: Character �
> 
> 
> Spec says that the parser MUST fatally fail without attempting to
> recover when it encounters an illegal character.  If that is indeed an
> illegal character according to the spec (I am too lazy to 
> verify), then
> MSXML treating it as whitespace is a bug.  In fact, I know that MSXML
> used to ignore many illegal characters instead of failing 
> properly, and
> this is corrected in MSXML4.  So chances are, this was just an MSXML
> bug, which is now fixed in MSXML4.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joshua
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred L. Drake, Jr. [mailto:fdrake@acm.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:47 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Character 
> 
> 
>   Perhaps this is a poor question, but there's a bug filed against
> Expat that I'd like to be able to deal with in the right way.  A user
> managed to insert some U+0000 characters in their data as NUL bytes,
> and has found that the MS parser interprets them as whitespace, and
> Expat doesn't.  I'd like to determine what the right thing to do would
> be from the perspective that strict conformance is the right thing.
>   Looking at XML 1.0 (2e), section 2.2 ("Characters"), at the "Char"
> production, I'm led to believe that U+0000 is not a legal XML
> character.  The comment attached to that production makes things less
> clear (at least to me), in that it seems to imply that all by the
> surrogates, U+FFFE, and U+FFFF are legal.
>   So, should U+0000 be interpreted as whitespace, non-whitespace, or
> an error?  (References to something I've missed would be quite
> welcome!)
>   Thanks!
> 
> 
>   -Fred
> 
> -- 
> Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fdrake at acm.org>
> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>